ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s: “A. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the In-Charge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in SA No. 86 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022 and the consequential notice dated 06.10.2022 issued by the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. B. Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order passed by the In-Charge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in SA No. 86 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022 and the consequential notice dated 06.10.2022 issued by the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad; and further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from taking possession of the premises of the petitioners as mentioned in the schedule of the notice dated 06.10.2022 being property (secured assets) situated at 5th Floor, Unit B/507/A, Mondeal Square, Survey No.833/P, 881/P and 843, Final Plot No.1/1, Town Planning Scheme No.23, Opp. Honest Restaurant, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad. C. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Vivek Sevak for respondent No.2. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submitted that as the application being Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is pending before the DRT 1, Ahmedabad and the said application is preferred under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). In the said application, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s: “A. The Honorable Tribunal may be allow the present pleased application and to quash. and set aside the entire action/measures initiated by the respondent under the Securitization Act including impugned demand Notice dated 29/11/2018 and 11.12.2018 in the interest of justice. B. Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside order passed by Ld' District Magistrate in vide case no. S.R. No.245/2019/2020 dated 7.2.2020 C. The Hon'ble Tribunal be further pleased to direct the respondent bank to reverse all the charges, expenses, costs etc. B. Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside order passed by Ld' District Magistrate in vide case no. S.R. No.245/2019/2020 dated 7.2.2020 C. The Hon'ble Tribunal be further pleased to direct the respondent bank to reverse all the charges, expenses, costs etc. debited by the respondent in the account of the applicant No.1 for the purpose of initiating and continuing illegal proceedings under the Securitization Act and be pleased to direct the respondent bank not to recover any such amount from the applicant. D. To award compensation in terms of the section 19 of the Securitization Act. E. To grant any other reliefs which this Honorable Tribunal deems just and fit in circumstances of the case F. To award the costs of the present Application.” Interim relief “a. Be pleased to grant injunction by staying the Operation, implementation and execution impugned notice dated 29.11.2018 and 11.12.2018 issued by the respondent and be further pleased to restrain the its men, authorized officers, agents, servants, assignees and attorneys etc. or any other person claiming through Respondent bank from continuing or initiating any further measures against the properties of the applicant in question which is more particularly described in SCHEDULE of this application. b. Pending Hearing and Final Disposal of this S.A. This Hon'ble Tribunal be restrain order passed by Ld' District Magistrate in Case No. S.R. No. 245/2019/2020 dated 07.02.2020. c. To grant any other reliefs which this Honorable Tribunal deems just and fit in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya drew the attention of this Court to an order dated 18.12.2021, passed by the DRT-1, Ahmedabad, whereby, the respondent Financial Institution was directed not to take any coercive action against the property in question till the hearing of the matter on 20.12.2021. According to learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, thereafter, on 20.12.2021, the petitioner was directed to file an undertaking stating the schedule of payment and matter was adjourned to 24.12.2021. Accordingly, an undertaking was filed in December, 2021 and the same was ordered to be taken on record vide order dated 24.12.2021. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time by the DRT-1. On 23.05.2022, the matter was further adjourned to 26.08.2022. According to learned advocate Mr. Accordingly, an undertaking was filed in December, 2021 and the same was ordered to be taken on record vide order dated 24.12.2021. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time by the DRT-1. On 23.05.2022, the matter was further adjourned to 26.08.2022. According to learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, though the matter was adjourned to 26.08.2022, surprisingly the matter was taken up by In-charge Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Ahmedabad on 29.07.2022 and as the matter was to come up on Board on 26.08.2022, the advocate for the petitioner was unaware about the fact that matter is to be taken up on 29.07.2022 and in absence of advocate of the applicant, the In-charge Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Ahmedabad passed the following order: Mr.V.N.Sevak, Ld. Counsel appeared for the Respondent/Financial Institution. None present for the Applicants. Today this matter has come up for hearing. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that fill date the Applicants have not deposited any amount despite the undertaking filed by the Applicants before this Tribunal. He further submitted that the interim protection granted by this Tribunal vide order did: 18.12.2021 & 20.12.2021 may be modified accordingly. Matter called several times, none present for the Applicants. Perusal of the record reveals that on 20.12.2021, the Applicants had submitted that they want to settle the matter with the Respondent/Financial Institution, for which, the Applicants were supposed to file an undertaking stating therein the schedule of payment. However, till date, no such undertaking has been filed by the Applicants. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Financial Institution, I deem it proper to modify the order did: 18.12.2021 & 20.12.2021 passed by this Tribunal and accordingly, the Respondent/Financial Institution is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Further, Respondent/Financial Institution shall give atleast 14 days' prior intimation to the applicants before taking any coercive action qua the property in question. Place the matter for further proceedings on 27.09.2022. 5. Thereafter, on 27.09.2022, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2023. 6. In the meantime, the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad issued possession notice dated 06.10.2022 whereby it was intimated that the possession of the property in question will be taken over on 29.10.2022 or any date thereafter. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking reliefs which are already incorporated in the foregoing paragraph. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking reliefs which are already incorporated in the foregoing paragraph. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submitted that pursuant to the undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner has already offered an amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- which was subsequently increased to Rs.1,85,00,000/- and pursuant to the direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2022, the present petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with the respondent Bank and petitioner has also issued a cheque of Rs.1,60,00,000/- to the respondent bank and it was returned to the petitioner as the petitioner has increased his offer from Rs.1,75,00,000/- to Rs.1,85,00,000/- and thereafter a new cheque of Rs.1,70,00,000/- was given by the petitioner to the respondent bank, which is lying with the respondent bank and as on today petitioner does not have any objection if the same is encashed by the respondent bank. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya also draws attention of this Court that as per the possession notice in respect of the property in question, the upset price of the property determined by the official valuer of the bank is Rs.1.47 crore and therefore the petitioner, even as on today, is offering more than Rs.37.5 lakh more than the upset price. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya further submitted that one of the officers of the respondent bank is having some ill-intention and is hand in glove with some of the prospective buyers and therefore the bank has not taken any positive steps though the cheque for remaining amount in favour of the bank is already with the bank and therefore this is a fit case to entertain present petition and the petitioner should not be relegated to avail the remedy of proceeding further with Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 pending before DRT-1, Ahemdabad as this Court has wide powers. 9. Learned advocate Mr. VN Sevak vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by DRT-1, Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No.86 of 2021, against that order, the petitioner is required to file an appeal before DRAT, Mumbai and hence this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy. As far as challenge to the notice dated 06.10.2022 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. As far as challenge to the notice dated 06.10.2022 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Sevak submitted that the same can be challenged before DRT-1, Ahmedabad by amending the application pending before it or the petitioner may avail any other appropriate remedy but challenge to the notice by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also does not warrant any interference from this Court and hence, on the ground of maintainability, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Learned advocate Mr. VN Sevak appearing for the respondent bank further submitted that it is true that initially the protection was granted in favour of the petitioner by DRT-1, Ahmedabad vide order dated 18.12.2021 and subsequently the petitioner also complied with the direction issued by DRT-1, Ahmedabad vide order dated 20.12.2021 by giving an undertaking as directed by DRT-1. According to learned advocate Mr. Sevak, it was the advocate for the petitioner who preferred an application for urgent hearing on 25.07.2022 as the Mamlatdar had issued notice for possession again on 22.07.2022 and fixed for possession on 30.07.2022 and therefore pursuant to the said application for urgent hearing, the DRT-1, Ahmedabad had preponed the matter to 29.07.2022 and Registry was directed to place the matter before the In-charge Presiding Officer, DRT-1 on 29.07.2022. Learned advocate Mr. SN Sevak has placed on record the certified copy of the record and proceedings of Securitization Application No.86 of 21 which is tendered across the bar and taken on record. 11. Mr. Sevak submitted that the aforesaid document, certified copy of which is produced on record today, would indicate that the matter was preponed upon an application for urgent hearing given by the petitioner himself and thereafter once the matter was fixed on 29.07.2022, the petitioner, through his advocate, did not remain present before the DRT-1, Ahmedabad and that is how in absence of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 was passed and subsequently another order dated 27.09.2022 also was passed and thereafter a notice dated 06.10.2022 was issued by the appropriate authority for taking over the possession of the property in question. 12. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. 12. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya points out that as per the Rojkam of very same day i.e. 29.07.2022, an advocate for the present petitioner who appeared before the DRT gave an application for retirement and therefore the fact remains that the petitioner remained unrepresented when the order dated 29.07.2022 was passed and therefore it is the duty of the Tribunal to notify the matter once again on the next day i.e. on 30.07.2022 when the possession of the property was to be taken over. 13. Be that as it may, as this Court is recording the submissions of both the sides and as the matter being Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is pending before DRT-1, Ahmedabad, the Court, at this stage, does not think it proper to say anything about the aforesaid aspect. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Sevak further draws the attention of this Court that even after this Court passed an order dated 20.10.2022, while issuing notice and made it returnable on 16th November, 2022 and while protecting the petitioner, the petitioner complied with the direction of this Court and deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent financial institution had preferred a Civil Application (for Vacating Interim Relief) No.1 of 2023, wherein, by way of order dated 01.03.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to vacate the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner, as the learned advocate for the petitioner did not remain present before the Court and therefore since 01.03.2023 though the relief granted in favour of the petitioner is vacated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, till date because the matter is sub-judice before this Court, the respondent No.2 financial institution has chosen not to take any action against the petitioner. 15. At this juncture, even the aforesaid statement made by learned advocate Mr. Sevak is disputed by learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya and states that in fact the respondent No.2 attempted to take over the possession on 14.07.2023 and on that day as the petitioner increased the offer from Rs. 1.75 crore to Rs.1.85 crore and given the cheque of remaining amount of Rs.1.70 crore, the possession was not taken over and Panchnama was also drawn on that day and copy was not given to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. 1.75 crore to Rs.1.85 crore and given the cheque of remaining amount of Rs.1.70 crore, the possession was not taken over and Panchnama was also drawn on that day and copy was not given to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Sevak states that in view of the fact that the main petition being Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is pending before DRT-1, Ahmedabad and by way of the said application, the petitioner has challenged the original possession notice as well as order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is relegated back to DRT to avail the remedy which is already exhausted by the petitioner without entering into the merits of the matter, keeping all the rights and contentions of both the sides open with a request to the DRT to expedite the hearing of Securitization Application No.86 of 2021. Learned advocate Mr. Sevak also assures that the advocate for the respondent bank shall not ask for time in the aforesaid proceedings and the proceedings may be directed to be concluded within some time bound schedule. 16. In view of above rival submissions and considering the fact that the petitioner’s main application being Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is pending before DRT-1, Ahmedabad as well as considering the fact that even today the relief which was in operation in favour of the petitioner is already vacated vide order dated 01.03.2023 and since than nothing has happened except for what is stated by learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, which is disputed by learned advocate Mr. Sevak, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is relegated back to avail the remedy which the petitioner has already availed i.e. to proceed with Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 with a request to DRT-1, Ahmedabad to expedite the hearing of the said application. 17. As far as the challenge to the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by DRT-1, Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is concerned, as the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner would be to challenge the said order before DRAT, Mumbai, without going into the validity and legality of the aforesaid order, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is required to be relegated to the alternative efficacious remedy available to him by preferring an appeal or appropriate proceedings before the DRAT, Mumbai. As far as challenge to notice dated 06.10.2022 is concerned, the petitioner has already preferred Securitization Application No.86 of 2021, which is pending before the DRT-1, Ahmedabad and therefore the petitioner may pursue the remedy in respect of aforesaid notice or any other subsequent development, in the aforesaid pending proceedings. 18. In view of above, the petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) The petitioner is at liberty to approach DRAT, Mumbai or may avail any other appropriate alternative remedy available to the petitioner in respect of challenge to the order dated 29.07.2022 impugned in this petition. (ii) The petitioner is directed to exhaust the remedy in respect of rest of the prayers by agitating the same before DRT-1, Ahmedabad by conducting Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 and to pursue his remedy before DRT-1, Ahmedabad. (iii) The DRT-1, Ahmedabad is requested to expedite the hearing of Securitization Application No.86 of 2021. (iv) The parties are directed to cooperate with the hearing and not to ask for unnecessary adjournments without there being any cogent reasons. 19. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. 20. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of. Notice discharged. No order as to cost.